Probably just BizNasty attempting to start ****, but if that's true...

EDIT: Apparently, it's legit.

I guess I'm not sure what "taking part in the CBA negotiations" means. If it means the actual sit down talks with Fehr, then I'm not surprised by this at all. Bettman, Daly, a couple of owners, an army of lawyers and accountants and probably a few GMs is already a huge contingent. Adding more won't help and will only complicate matters and might even be harmful to their effort if Fehr tried to cause division among the ranks.

I used to negotiate agreements for a company I worked for (yes...I know it's the internet so I could make anything up, but I really did so you can choose to believe it or not). I got to do some of the smaller deals and my boss was the lead negotiator for some huge (some over $100M) deals. He rarely had more than 1 or 2 key stakeholders in with him during negotiations. He met with all of them separately to understand their key points and their walk away positions and then he handled all the negotiations with only a few of them, some lawyers, and some finance guys in the room. He made it clear he was the 1 voice and in charge in the negotiations.

I'm not saying all of them need to show up to every meeting, but I am surprised that so few have shown up at all.

I understand that Bettman speaks for all of them (allegedly), but when we're talking millions of dollars to be made or loss (with regards to the owners), I'd want to show up for at least 1 meeting to ensure everything's progressing as well as Bettman (or whoever my appointed figurehead) is reporting.

And, again this might just be me, if I'm a smaller market and we're discussing revenue sharing or other points that may help/hinder my ability to run the team, I'd want to make sure the smaller markets are being represented by Bettman as equally as the larger markets.

I'm not saying all of them need to show up to every meeting, but I am surprised that so few have shown up at all.

I understand that Bettman speaks for all of them (allegedly), but when we're talking millions of dollars to be made or loss (with regards to the owners), I'd want to show up for at least 1 meeting to ensure everything's progressing as well as Bettman (or whoever my appointed figurehead) is reporting.

And, again this might just be me, if I'm a smaller market and we're discussing revenue sharing or other points that may help/hinder my ability to run the team, I'd want to make sure the smaller markets are being represented by Bettman as equally as the larger markets.

I think you are reading way too much into this and I suspect this is the type of reaction BizNasty was going for (over-reaction on a non-issue by people not understanding what's going on). Having more than a handful at the actual negotiation sessions OR rotating who shows up would worse IMO. You have no idea how much communication is occurring between those at the negotiations and other owners, no idea if there are other representatives there, how often Bettman and the owners meet, etc...

This isn't the owners (or Bettman's) first time around on this and they all know the drill. They know what proposals are going forward and at this point, they aren't even close to the big terms (money split). For more owners to sit in at this point would be nothing but symbolic.

Hasn't Rutherford been in on these meetings? Isn't he at least a partial owner?

Yes, he's on the committee and has been at every meeting.

There are GMs/Owners attending. With Rutherford attending, we don't need PK attending as well. What's the saying "too many cooks in the kitchen." Its hard enough getting the two sides to sit down and talk with a small group, imagine if they made the meetings bigger.

Not every player has attended or been involved on the NHLPA side either. But Fehr will keep in touch via email on what is happening. I'm pretty sure the other side is doing the same thing for those that are not attending.

I think it would be beneficial to guys like Faulk and Skinner, especially if are a number of NHL caliber players are playing there. I think there would also benefit guys like Dalpe, Rask, Boychuk, Levi, Nash, etc...if a bunch of guys like Faulk and Skinner do play in the AHL. They would get to hone their game playing against a higher level of competition while not quite the level of the NHL.

The biggest benefit for Skinner would be an opportunity to enjoy a little more "easy" offense, which would give him a bit more time and energy to put toward his own zone. Defense is a habit and it would be nice to see him learn it.

Faulk, I think, just needs ice time and repetition. Doesn't really matter which league.

Don't know specifics, but I believe waivers should be considered when trying to figure out who would play in CLT in event of NHL lockout

Would everyone clear? Would Canes even risk it for certain players in case lockout was only a few weeks long? Don't know.

Might be a reason why Skinner/Faulk wouldn't play in Charlotte. Still not 100% on how waivers work currently (especially with regards to 1-way/2-way contracts), and that could change in the new CBA being debated.

Bettman, Daly, and Fehr are supposed to meet today. They better be able to stop acting like children and have a good meeting that lasts longer than 45 minutes before sides break it up and start finger pointing.

I'd like to know that they know they really can't afford yet another lock out in less than 10 years. But they seem to don't care and will lock the doors.

It doesn't have to get done before or on Sept 15, just get done in prior to Oct. K Thanks.

I really think they can afford another lockout. In every sport where there has been a delay, strike or lockout, the fans have always come back. It might not happen in year 1, but it always happens. The fans will come back and the value of franchises will continue to increase (which is the real value to owners, more than the P+L).

I realize the owners asking for the players to accept 43% and 46% is overkill, but the players having 57% is equally as absurd. Other major sports are closer to 50% and some of those don't even have the guaranteed contracts like the NHL does. In the NFL, they cut guys loose mid contract all the time. I actually don't blame NFL players for holding out like they do wanting a new contract when owners/GMs can cut a guy loose and end the contract at any time.